Five of the most-watched criminal prosecutions in modern American history ended the same way: with a jury that could not agree. The first trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez, Bill Cosby’s 2017 sexual assault trial, Phil Spector’s first murder trial, John Edwards’s campaign finance prosecution, and the murder trial of Pedro Hernandez all produced hung juries and mistrials. Those are the famous hung jury cases that keep coming up, and together they show how a single holdout, or a small cluster of them, can stop a prosecution that a majority of jurors wanted to convict.
How a Hung Jury Ends a Trial
A criminal conviction in the United States requires a unanimous jury verdict. The Sixth Amendment requires unanimity to convict on any non-petty offense in federal and state court.1Cornell Law School. U.S. Constitution Annotated – Unanimity of the Jury Louisiana and Oregon were the last two states to allow non-unanimous convictions, and the Supreme Court closed that gap in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020).2Constitution Annotated. Amdt6.4.4.3 Unanimity of the Jury
When a jury reports it is stuck, the judge usually issues an Allen charge, named for the 1896 case Allen v. United States. It instructs jurors to reconsider their positions and keep listening to one another without surrendering any honest belief.3Legal Information Institute. Allen Charge If deliberations still collapse, the judge declares a mistrial.
A mistrial is not an acquittal. The Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause does not prevent a retry when a jury genuinely cannot reach a verdict, under the “manifest necessity” doctrine the Supreme Court set out in United States v. Perez (1824).4Legal Information Institute. Reprosecution After Mistrial Prosecutors can retry, offer a plea, or drop the charges. The split often decides which: a 10-2 vote favoring conviction looks very different to a district attorney than a 10-2 vote favoring acquittal.
The First Menendez Brothers Trial (1993)
Lyle and Erik Menendez were charged under California’s murder statute for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez.5Supreme Court of the United States. California Penal Code 187 – Murder Defined Their 1993 trial was televised on Court TV and watched nationwide. The defense argued the brothers killed out of genuine fear after years of alleged sexual and psychological abuse. Prosecutors said the killings were planned and driven by inheritance.
Each brother had his own jury, and both deadlocked. Some jurors accepted the abuse narrative and wanted a lesser charge like voluntary manslaughter; others saw premeditated murder. Neither jury could agree on the murder charges or on any lesser alternative, so the judge declared a mistrial for both defendants.
The brothers were retried in 1996 before a single jury, with tighter limits on testimony about the alleged abuse. Both were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.
The First Bill Cosby Trial (2017)
Bill Cosby was charged in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, with three counts of aggravated indecent assault, a second-degree felony.6Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania Code 18 – Aggravated Indecent Assault The charges arose from a 2004 encounter with Andrea Constand, which meant the jury had to weigh recollections of events more than a decade old. There was little physical evidence, and the case turned on credibility.
The jury deliberated more than 52 hours over six days. When jurors first reported they were stuck, the judge delivered an Allen charge urging them to keep working toward consensus.3Legal Information Institute. Allen Charge It did not break the deadlock. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts, and the judge declared a mistrial.
Cosby was retried in April 2018 and convicted on all three counts, drawing a sentence of three to ten years in state prison. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the conviction on June 30, 2021, finding that a prior district attorney’s public promise not to prosecute had induced Cosby to give self-incriminating civil deposition testimony that was later used against him. The court barred any future prosecution on those charges.
The First Phil Spector Murder Trial (2007)
Music producer Phil Spector was charged with second-degree murder in the February 2003 death of actress Lana Clarkson, who was found shot in the foyer of his home.5Supreme Court of the United States. California Penal Code 187 – Murder Defined The prosecution said Spector shot her; the defense said she took her own life. The case turned on competing readings of forensic evidence, especially blood spatter patterns and gunshot residue.
After weeks of dueling experts, the jury split 10-2 in favor of conviction. Because criminal verdicts must be unanimous, the two holdouts were enough to prevent a guilty finding.1Cornell Law School. U.S. Constitution Annotated – Unanimity of the Jury The judge declared a mistrial.
Spector was retried in 2009 and convicted of second-degree murder, receiving the maximum sentence of 19 years to life. He died in custody in January 2021.
The John Edwards Campaign Finance Trial (2012)
Former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted on six felony counts under the Federal Election Campaign Act.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 30116 – Limitations on Contributions and Expenditures The government alleged that during his 2008 presidential campaign he directed more than $900,000 in secret payments from wealthy donors to hide an extramarital affair and a child born during the campaign.8U.S. Department of Justice. Former Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards Charged The central question was whether those payments were illegal campaign contributions or personal gifts outside election law.
After nine days of deliberation, the jury acquitted Edwards on one count and deadlocked on the other five. The judge declared a mistrial on the remaining counts. Jurors had to decide not just whether the money moved but whether Edwards specifically intended it to influence the election rather than protect his family, and they could not agree on that question unanimously. The government chose not to retry him.
The First Pedro Hernandez Trial (2015)
Pedro Hernandez was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping under New York law in the 1979 disappearance of six-year-old Etan Patz, one of the best-known missing child cases in American history.9New York State Senate. New York Penal Code 125.25 – Murder in the Second Degree No body was ever found. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on confessions Hernandez gave to police in 2012, more than three decades after the boy vanished. The defense said those confessions were unreliable, driven by mental illness and suggestive interrogation.
The jury deliberated for 18 days and reported an 11-1 split in favor of conviction. The single holdout could not accept the confessions as credible given Hernandez’s psychological history. The judge declared a mistrial.
Hernandez was retried in 2017 and convicted on both counts, drawing 25 years to life. In July 2025 a federal appeals court overturned the conviction, finding that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction when the jury asked whether it should disregard post-Miranda confessions if it found the pre-Miranda confession involuntary.10Justia Law. Hernandez v McIntosh, No 24-1816 (2d Cir 2025) The court ordered him released unless the state grants a new trial within a reasonable time. As of late 2025, prosecutors have said they intend to retry the case.
The Pattern Across the Five Cases
Each of these juries got stuck on a different question: the abuse defense in both Menendez trials, credibility across a decade’s gap for Cosby, forensic interpretation for Spector, criminal intent for Edwards, and confession reliability for Hernandez. In four of the five, a strong majority wanted to convict. Unanimity means “almost certain” is not enough, and a handful of jurors, sometimes a single one, can stop the case.
What came after is also worth noting. Every defendant on this list except Edwards was retried, and every retrial produced a conviction, though two of those convictions were later overturned on appeal for reasons unrelated to the hung jury itself. Prosecutors rarely walk away from a high-profile case after a deadlock that leaned their way. They narrow the issues, adjust the witnesses, and go again. A hung jury buys a defendant time and a second trial, not freedom.